In 1998, one year after stepping down as Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten published East and West, a chronicle of his experiences in the former British colony. In chapter 2 Patten gives the following description: "... One after another, Chinese officials would accuse me of having broken the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. `How have I done so?' I would respond ....`Well,' they would usually claim somewhat lamely, `you have at least broken the spirit of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.' `What do you mean by the spirit? Do you just mean that you disagree with me? Why not then discuss what I have done? Put forward your own proposals.' `We cannot put forward our own proposals until you return to the spirit of the text.' The circles spun and looped; the arguments twisted and turned; the greased pig wriggled about the room; defying capture."
Reading the book is a sobering experience, even four and half years after the handover. One can give a highly accurate description of the cross-strait situation by simply substituting "Joint Declaration and Basic Law" with "1992 consensus" -- the purported agreement that continues to stir up controversy across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Communist Party uses the same negotiation tactics against Taiwan, as it did with the British. One has to wonder whether the controversy over whether there was ever a "1992 consensus" is simply part of Beijing's propaganda and psychological warfare -- and a complete waste of time.
If the Chen Shui-bian (
The dispute is simply aimed at misleading the Taiwanese and the international community. Nevertheless, we hear some in the international community, who know little about the "1992 consensus" and yet are too willing to spout off about it.
Recently, a senior US official in Washington DC told a reporter from Taiwan: "Of course, the two sides had a `most basic consensus' before they held the Koo-Wang talks." The remarks came at a sensitive time in Taiwan's election campaign. The pro-unification media in Taiwan magnified the significance of these remarks by giving them extensive coverage. Beneath the headlines, however, one was hard put to find any clue as to the meaning of the so-called consensus. The official did not explain, but the damage was already done.
The motive of Taiwan's pro-unification media was clear: they wanted to use Uncle Sam's words to teach the Chen government a lesson. At the same time, many of Beijing's stooges who are candidates in the elections are using the US official's remarks to attack their rivals.
In fact, we know from the statements of former president Lee Teng-hui (
US officials should take the time to read Patten's book and learn from his Hong Kong experience. The US should neither force Taiwan to the negotiation table nor subject it to humiliation before China removes all of its pre-conditions and begins to interact rationally with Taiwan and the rest of the world. US officials should also be careful about the content and timing of their remarks lest they become Beijing's accomplices.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS